Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, Second Division
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY Honorable Jason R.
E. SCOTT, J.
Medlin's fifth appeal involving a mechanic's lien he
filed over 16 years ago, he challenges the denial of his Rule
74.06(b) motion to set aside the 2008 final judgment
("Original Judgment") as void for violating due
process in its disposition of his petition's fifth count.
1999, RLC subcontracted Medlin to perform
work on a subdivision, then refused Medlin's $36, 397
payment request. In 2000, Medlin filed a
blanket mechanic's lien statement against the subdivision
and a petition to enforce it. By 2004,
Medlin's Fifth Amended Petition asserted claims for a
mechanic's lien (Count I), breach of contract (Count II),
quantum meruit (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and
fraudulent transfers (Count V).
2006, the trial court ordered that Counts
I-IV be court tried, severed Count V "for separate trial
by jury, " then heard evidence on Counts I-IV on various
dates through August 2007. Count V was never
tried to a jury or court, nor was Count V evidence presented
or heard during the Count I-IV bench trial.
June 2008, the court entered the Original
Judgment, granting Medlin a Count II money judgment against
RLC secured by a Count I mechanic's lien against the
subdivision, and denying and dismissing all other counts,
claims, counterclaims, or cross-claims. Medlin timely moved
to amend, modify, or correct the judgment because Count V
"was severed for separate trial and has not yet been
adjudicated." After a motion hearing where Count V was
discussed, Medlin's motion was overruled by operation of
law and the Original Judgment became final in October
2009, the court purported to amend the
Original Judgment to indicate that Count V remained pending.
In 2010, at Medlin's request, the court
purported to amend the Original Judgment a second time.
voluntarily dismissed Count V without prejudice in
2011 and did not reassert it within the
one-year savings period.
2013, the trial court set aside the
purported 2009 and 2010 amendments and reinstated the
Original Judgment. Medlin appealed that action (Medlin
II), urging in part that the Original Judgment's
disposition of Count V violated due process and rendered that
judgment void. Necessarily rejecting that argument, we
affirmed the trial court's action (423 S.W.3d at 285),
after which the Original Judgment's mechanic's lien
was satisfied and released.
Medlin II, Medlin filed a Rule 74.06(b) motion
alleging again that the Original Judgment was void for
violating due process as to Count V. The trial court denied
relief, citing Medlin II and also finding that
Medlin's voluntary dismissal of Count V in 2011 had
extinguished that count from the case. Medlin now appeals
we owe the trial court no deference (Medlin II, 423
S.W.3d at 283), we cannot fault either prong of its
Medlin fails to convince us that, in voluntarily dismissing
Count V, he did not waive his claim of ...